The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Which one sounds better the digital or analog? Consoles
Old 2nd October 2008
  #1
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Which one sounds better the digital or analog?


Last edited by dualflip; 2nd October 2008 at 10:11 PM.. Reason: Changed links
Old 3rd October 2008
  #2
Gear Nut
 
moonman's Avatar
 

is anyone really gonna say that digital is better than analog at anything?? are we all supposed to be tricked here,,,ohh, you thought it was analog but really it was digital..i'll probably be the only post here..
Old 3rd October 2008
  #3
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

not sure about your post,
but everywhere else i have been,
analog audio sounds best in my
humble opinion
life is too short to investigate
why.
there is plenty of used tape.



be well


- jack
Old 3rd October 2008
  #4
Unless you post them without saying which is which, it's a meaningless question pretty much. Even if the digital version sounded twice as good, no one would pick it, since if it's digital, then it cannot sound as good, therefore you obviously didn't do something right on the analog mix, and therefore the question is meaningless.

So it's a losing proposition unless you make people choose without knowing.
Old 3rd October 2008
  #5
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Just wanted to know your opinion, not trying to undermine analog, actually im all analog, wouldnt hurt if you just said which one you liked better, perhaps its not what you think , my post is not meant to undermine either, or make someone think "ohhh its digital, and i thought it was analog" dont be afraid to tell which one you like better, the reason why i dont want to post the analog board is because i dont want anyone to get biased by the brand or whatever.. just wanted to hear some opinions..., although if you want me to say which board i used, just tell me and i'll post it. BTW im not telling which one is the analog and which one is the digital, is a blind test, thats what im looking for
Old 3rd October 2008
  #6
OH, I didn't think you were. I was just saying what the arguments would be, not that I think that.
Old 3rd October 2008
  #7
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
OH, I didn't think you were. I was just saying what the arguments would be, not that I think that.
Ok, i get your point and i apreciate your comments, the funny thing is that i did this same post in another forum, and everyone commented. I think people in here are afraid that if they choose digital over analog, or viceversa, they think they will be the "fool ones", well thats just what i think... everyone is giving me their comment on why they dont want to do the test.., BTW as i said, im not undermining either, i want to prove a point actually.
Old 3rd October 2008
  #8
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Even if the digital version sounded twice as good, no one would pick it, since if it's digital, then it cannot sound as good, therefore you obviously didn't do something right on the analog mix, and therefore the question is meaningless.
Well, I officially don't trust your ears...

Talk about being closed minded, jeesh!

Since digital is so much better please show me your album that you recorded in Pro Tools or any DAW that sounds better than Darkside of the Moon, Aja, Crash, Billy Breathes, Violator, Joshua Tree... The list goes on and on. You are officially clueless Mr. Roddey. Sorry to be so blunt but frankly I'm tired of these ignorant, "digital get's a bad rap posts."
Old 3rd October 2008
  #9
Read to the end, then comment :-) I was just telling how the thread was going to go, since it's inevitable. Doesn't matter what's true or not, that's just what would happen, hence I was just saying he's probably wasting his time anyway. I wasn't expressing an opinion either way. I never said anything sounded better than any of those albums, I just said that even if it did, no one would probably accept it, and they would say the analog mix was screwed up. It pretty much always happens.
Old 3rd October 2008
  #10
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Read to the end, then comment :-) I was just telling how the thread was going to go, since it's inevitable. Doesn't matter what's true or not, that's just what would happen, hence I was just saying he's probably wasting his time anyway. I wasn't expressing an opinion either way. I never said anything sounded better than any of those albums, I just said that even if it did, no one would probably accept it.
Well that's the point, digital doesn't sound better than analog period. There are plenty of albums out there to prove this point. A well maintained Studer blows away any HD rig any day, period.

Sorry, I'm not trying to jump down your throat on this I just hate to see analogue fade away just because it is more expensive to record on than digital. Oh well...
Old 3rd October 2008
  #11
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

bc got that right
Old 3rd October 2008
  #12
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
So it's a losing proposition unless you make people choose without knowing.
I like it better when you don't even give away what it is that we are choosing between.

My secret hope is that dualflip is lying to us about how he recorded the files!



In the first pair, I much preferred 'A'. It sounded more like how the drums sound to me when I am playing them. It was bright and punchy and I could make out some nice 16th note stuff on the High Hat. 'B' was dull and flabby by comparison, and I suspect somewhat quieter as well.


In the second pair I much preferred 'B' even though it seemed a bit quieter. It was more cohesive. 'A' sounded very unblended and fake to me, the sampled drums sounded like samples and the guitars were painful.

My feeling though, is that mixing decisions contributed to my preferences more than the media. Hoping for a surprise, I won't guess which as which, but I will guess I liked one of each. i.e. - whichever was 'A' in the first test was also 'A' in the second.

No human being is capable of performing the "same mix" on two different systems, but in these cases, I get the feeling that each of the mixes really 'drifted off' in their own unique aesthetic directions.
Old 3rd October 2008
  #13
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I like it better when you don't even give away what it is that we are choosing between.

My secret hope is that dualflip is lying to us about how he recorded the files!



In the first pair, I much preferred 'A'. It sounded more like how the drums sound to me when I am playing them. It was bright and punchy and I could make out some nice 16th note stuff on the High Hat. 'B' was dull and flabby by comparison, and I suspect somewhat quieter as well.


In the second pair I much preferred 'B' even though it seemed a bit quieter. It was more cohesive. 'A' sounded very unblended and fake to me, the sampled drums sounded like samples and the guitars were painful.

My feeling though, is that mixing decisions contributed to my preferences more than the media. Hoping for a surprise, I won't guess which as which, but I will guess I liked one of each. i.e. - whichever was 'A' in the first test was also 'A' in the second.

No human being is capable of performing the "same mix" on two different systems, but in these cases, I get the feeling that each of the mixes really 'drifted off' in their own unique aesthetic directions.
Well thanks for being the first one to break the ice..., ok yes i agree with you about the metal mix "A" being a little fake, in fact both are rough mixes, just created as ilustration purposes. Ok so after no one wanted to share except you ill tell you, The A is a Behringer MX9000 console, B is Protools with as i said premium plug-ins, my point is that i wanted to ilustrate how even a Behri console may sound (apart from the music aesthetic and mix) somehow better than a plug-in, aside from the mixes, which btw i did on-the-fly. So to those that thought "this guy is trying to tell me digital sounds better" in fact i was trying to tell you that even cheap analog sounds better than plug-ins, it think the best example is the drum kit, in my opinion it sounds bigger, fatter and more present.... so for those that now they want to share go ahead and choose A, you'll be confident that is the "analog" version and you wont feel stupid (im being sarcastic).
Old 3rd October 2008
  #14
Quote:
Well that's the point, digital doesn't sound better than analog period. There are plenty of albums out there to prove this point. A well maintained Studer blows away any HD rig any day, period.
But... you are damning me for telling him that what people are going to say, and you are saying exactly what I told him people are going to say. So, I'm not sure what you are damning me for in that case.
Old 3rd October 2008
  #15
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dualflip View Post
so for those that now they want to share go ahead and choose A, you'll be confident that is the "analog" version and you wont feel stupid (im being sarcastic).
I hate to break the news to you but mixing on a Behringer mixer with pro tools isn't analogue.

Tracking to a Studer A800 and mixing through a Neve 8048 is analogue.

"Does anybody have any questions?"

Old 3rd October 2008
  #16
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
But... you are damning me for telling him that what people are going to say, and you are saying exactly what I told him people are going to say. So, I'm not sure what you are damning me for in that case.
I agree with you, funny how everyone here wants to feel "pro" and say all the same things other people say, i think the difference with home recording forums is that they are opened to what their ears say and not what other people will think of them or the price of their gear.. so yeah Roddey you made your point. BTW i was trying to get some nice feedback, i mean i didnt post this thread to upset anyone, on the contrary i hoped people would like such things, i guess i was wrong..
Old 3rd October 2008
  #17
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
I hate to break the news to you but mixing on a Behringer mixer with pro tools isn't analogue.

Tracking to a Studer A800 and mixing through a Neve 8048 is analogue.

"Does anybody have any questions?"
Did you read the part were i said the output of the Behri mixer was sent to Analog Tape? and the part where i said that all the compression was done in protools? (subsequently all of the tracks were in protools), and i hate to break the news to you, mixing on a behringer mixer with protools is analogue as far as i know there are no 0's and 1's inside the Behri, tracking to a Studer A800 and mixing through a Neve 8048 is Recording and mixing analogue. If you ever listen to classical music, i advice you to look at the back of a classical music record it has three letters AAD or ADD or DDD or DAD, meaning A= analog D= digital, i tell you this because they do the distinction of the three stages Recording, Mixing and Mastering... any questions?
Old 3rd October 2008
  #18
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dualflip View Post
i said that all the compression was done in protools? (subsequently all of the tracks were in protools)
Exactly, if you're tracks go through AD/DA at any point it becomes digital. From that point on it is not an analogue recording.

Look up the definition of analogue and digital, it's pretty basic stuff.

People throw around the word analogue way to cavalierly these days. "I used a Behringer mixer on my pro tools production now it's totally analogue bro!"

There's nothing wrong with doing things like you did but you shouldn't refer to that recording as analog just because you used a Behringer mixer on it. I think it's better to be specific than just label something as analog because at some point during the recording chain you used outboard gear. You made your mix out of the box, (otb). That would be a clear way of describing what you did as opposed to in the box, (itb).

When I say I like analogue recordings better than digital I'm referring to recordings tracked to tape and mixed on consoles; otherwise I think it gets very confusing for people. Hence all the confusion that surrounds the analogue vs. digital debate...
Old 3rd October 2008
  #19
EJW
Gear Nut
 
EJW's Avatar
 

Ok, I haven't read any comments yet, just the OP, sooooo how do I feel?

I like the first one - a on the drums; however, there's a prominent hiss at the beginning (analog one?), good news is I couldn't hear it during the song. I thought it was a lot beefier than the second sample.

Of the metal stuff, I liked the second one the most. I think they're about level as far as the quality of the sounds, but the mix was better and seemed to mesh well in the second sample- more so than the first one (though it being louder almost tricked me into liking it )

Now let's see what everyone else said

....Edit....

Well I just read the comments and was let down, not many people played :(. Oh well, maybe next time we can just have fun and play along rather than try to predict how everyone will react :/
Old 3rd October 2008
  #20
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcgood View Post
Exactly, if you're tracks go through AD/DA at any point it becomes digital. From that point on it is not an analogue recording.

There's nothing wrong with doing things like you did but you shouldn't refer to that recording as analog just because you used a Behringer mixer on it. I think it's better to be specific than just label something as analog because at some point during the recording chain you used outboard gear. You made your mix out of the box, (otb). That would be a clear way of describing what you did as opposed to in the box, (itb).

When I say I like analogue recordings better than digital I'm referring to recordings tracked to tape and mixed on consoles; otherwise I think it gets very confusing for people. Hence all the confusion that surrounds the analogue vs. digital debate...
Ok first of all explain me when did i ever talked about recording with the behri?, im sorry but as you said, its very simple, yes you are right, electric signals translate into 0's and 1's through the use of an AD converter, but as the name suggest a DA converter translates the 0's and 1's into analog signals... so if i convert those 0's and 1's into an analog signal, and then i mix that signal, what do i have? Analog MIXING, thats in capital letters so theres no confusion between recording and mixing...
Old 3rd October 2008
  #21
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

You know man, i dont even want to argue, if you are trying to say that mixing on a Behri desk is digital mixing, ok think whatever you want.. this wasnt the purpose of my post anyway, and since your first post you did nothing but take it on people, you didnt even read the full post to know what other people was talking about... so thanks for sharing...
Old 3rd October 2008
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Chaellus's Avatar
digital can sound good in the hands of a knowledgable engineer but analog is the end all be all.. this test is only valid if the analog mixer or console in question is one of high quality not some cheap mixer....with that in mind i will check your samples.
Old 3rd October 2008
  #23
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaellus View Post
digital can sound good in the hands of a knowledgeable engineer but analog is the end all be all..
Yep
Old 3rd October 2008
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Never-ending

I am beginning to find all this very funny.

There will always be people who just feeling is better than the other. It is so subjective, there is no win. There will be no defining moment that proves anyone "right" or "wrong."

I have both available to me and have no included enough pieces like the Anamod tape and The Hammer, which together makes an EXTREMELY compelling case for the best of both worlds.

Throw in the Portico tape unit to add some variety to tracking; and the two create an "analogue" recording alongside Pro Tools.

I do own and love a Studer A80. GREAT piece, but to be honest, it's not winning over the above set-up at the moment.

And this only came after the fact that I had both to work with and just started working with whatever gave me the best results because in the back of my head, I had both, so I had the security that I would just use whichever was sounding right.

That said, man an A80 is BRILLIANT... but more me, it might be time to pass it along to another lucky soul.

Anyone want to buy a brilliant Studer A80 that came from the famous NYC "Hit Factory?"


-Andrews
Old 3rd October 2008
  #25
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 

Hey Andrews, could you post a production that was tracked in pro tools to illustrate the better sound you're getting than analogue? The A80 is a two track machine which would make it hard to track a whole production on unless your whole production contains two tracks. Multitrack tape, (Like the Studer A800 Mk III) mixed on nice consoles are what I'm talking about.

Old 3rd October 2008
  #26
Gear Head
 
qpress's Avatar
 

I like the drum sound on the A tracks much better.
Old 3rd October 2008
  #27
Lives for gear
 
NYMo's Avatar
 

Hi there,

Pretty sure it was two Studer A 80's synced together for 48 trax that I did my album on
at EMI 301 Sydney studios in 1985 !

Cheers
N
Y
M
O
Old 3rd October 2008
  #28
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
PT vs. Behringer heh
Sounds like joke, but it isn't.
Seems that Behringer doesn't sound that bad as some posters imply here on GS.
I only once worked with Behringer small line mixer, but just for simple live performance.
Actually I would expect to hear much better mix from PT than Behringer.
Old 3rd October 2008
  #29
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang View Post
PT vs. Behringer heh
Sounds like joke, but it isn't.
Seems that Behringer doesn't sound that bad as some posters imply here on GS.
I only once worked with Behringer small line mixer, but just for simple live performance.
Actually I would expect to hear much better mix from PT than Behringer.
+1..I love it that all the HIGH ENDer's picked the BEHRINGER!!!haha..made my day!!
Old 3rd October 2008
  #30
Lives for gear
 
dualflip's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gearaddict View Post
+1..I love it that all the HIGH ENDer's picked the BEHRINGER!!!haha..made my day!!
YES!!!, i also have an MCI JH-500 but wanted to do it with the Behringer just for the fun of it, thats why i didnt wanted to mention the board brand..
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
RainbowStorm / So Much Gear, So Little Time
15
undermind / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
18
fuzzface777 / So Much Gear, So Little Time
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump